Was wondering about Rashi that says Moshe requested that the cheilek of Datan
V'Aviram in the korban tzibbur be nullified. Does the kohein have the right
to be makriv the korban tamid or other korban tzibbur with such a tnai that
people be excluded - the tzibbur, after all, not the kohein, is the ba'alim
on the korban, so how is the tnai valid?
Netziv in Ha'amek Davar (17:12) says that in a case of Yom Tov preceding
Shabbos, if a pikuach nefesh situation arises where there exists some doubt
on Friday as to whether it is really a sakanah but on Shabbos it will be a
vadai sakkanah, it is preferable to wait for it to be a vadai sakkanah to
violate Shabbos despite the fact that the chomer haissur will be greater. My
question is why - safek sakkanah is doche Shabbos/Y"T to the same degree
vadai sakkanah is - perhaps there is some ra'aya that safek sakanah is
b'geder dechiyah and vadai sakanah is b'geder hutrah, though Netziv doesn't
elaborate.
Good Shabbos,
-CB

Saul Newman writes:
>the article also states that no Gadol has come out of a non 'pure' yeshiva
>system [ i.e. torah plus univ/tzahal/etc. ], nor would it ever be expected
>to produce one....
>
RYGB Responds:
>
>I should hope that the overwhelming majority of "Charedim" (I detest that
>categorization, but it is the one in vogue) would disagree with the
>assestion that army service is not a mitzva.
>It is a pity that such halachically incorrect and offensive material is
>produced by some that are allegedly representative of Torah Judaism. That
>is to assume that this publication purports to be a mouthpiece of
>Torah-true Judaism, although its statements be wrong, and doubtlessly
>unsourced. But praytell, who is "Ha'dei'ah v'ha"Dibbur"? Last I heard,
>those were descriptors of the Chai Olamim...
As does Joel Rich:
> I find it shocking that in the two days since this was posted there has
> been no response to this. Rav Soloveitchick (both JB and Aaron,) Rav A
> Lichtenstein do not qualify?
>
>I felt no reason to grant legitimacy to such statements by even acknowledging
>them.
Without making any value judgements, I submit that the Hadeiah Vehadibbur
statement represents mainstream Hareidi thinking.
I base this on two famous teshuvos by R. Shach, Shlita in "michtavim
uma'amarim" (Writings and Statements). Here are direct
quotes from the sefer (pages 40-41).
"...it is well known that the Mizrachi movement has no connection at all
to the promulgation of Torah (harbotzas Torah), and to the contrary, the
Yeshiva High Schoools and Hesder Yehivas and their ilk have contracted
and minimized the image of greatness in Torah and the yearning to be a
godol in Torah, and if a few [talmidei chachomim] have in fact come out
[of these institutions], that is because thay have continued to study
subsequently in holy yeshivas that do not include any mixture of secular
subjects. But the vast majority of those in Yeshiva high schoool and
hesder Yeshivas have no yearning for this, and is this harbotzas Torah?"
On the Ma'arava high school (the Yeshiva in Matityahu which features limudei
chol):
"...a breach has been made in the fence to open an institution for youth
near Jerusalem with the name "Ma'arava", and they have changed many
things from the standard Yeshiva curriculum, and they have added evil to
their evil to allow students to study secular subjects and to occupy
themselves in vanity".
These teshuvos are firmly grounded in a teshuva by R. Diskin which "assurs"
secular subjects because secular pursuits could interest students who might
otherwise become Gedolei Torah. R. Diskin goes on to state that the only
legitimate "extra Torah" profession is e.g. a storekeeper, a job which would
not otherwise entice those destined for greatness in Torah. This teshuvah
forms the basis for contemporary ("right wing") Yeshiva education. College
is therefore not assur only because of the widespread "Tum'ah" in that
enviroment: it is assur because it is forbidden "be'en" - the very option to
pursue a secular career will reduce the godol pool. And although, as R.
Diskin states, only 1 out of a thousand have any hope of entering this
"pool", the other 999 must sacrifice for its creation.
The bulk of the Hareidi Yeshiva system is designed to produce Gedolim
exclusively. It is easy to see how the army would be a distraction from this
goal, just as secular studies are a similar distraction. This, I strongly
believe, is the reason that Shas and UTJ remain so firm on
on this point of no draft for Hareidi students in the present coalition
negotiations. Their entire view of the Torah society hangs in the balance.
In other words, the view of "Ha'dei'ah v'ha"Dibbur", noxious as it might
appear, clearly represents "Da'as Torah."
I had a conversation with R. Elya Svei, Shlit'a about why limudei chol are
"asur" in Israel and "mutar" in the U.S., but it is too late on Friday PM to
continue. We'll see how this thread progresses...
Arnie Lustiger

In a message dated 6/18/99 4:50:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alustig@erenj.com writes:
<<
I had a conversation with R. Elya Svei, Shlit'a about why limudei chol are
"asur" in Israel and "mutar" in the U.S., but it is too late on Friday PM to
continue. We'll see how this thread progresses...
Arnie Lustiger
>>
I'd be interested in the response. As to the rest, permit me to snip a small
part from a recent Virtual Bet Medrash shiur on the Rav's (Soleveitchik)
thought .
Related to this last claim is the oft-repeated
assertion that the Rav never engaged in apologetics.
Apologetics results when a person accepts an external
frame of reference and explains tradition in its light.
When viewed this way, tradition becomes "problematic."
By forcing tradition to fit into a preconceived and alien
framework, one effectively places it into the proverbial
"mitat Sedom" (Procrustean bed). This inevitably leads
to distortion of the tradition, either by assigning it
unlikely meanings or by ignoring that which does not
cohere with one's theory.
In contrast, Rav Soloveitchik had utter confidence
in Jewish tradition and asserted its conceptual autonomy.
He did not seek to "synthesize" or "harmonize" it with
any other system of thought. Rather, he accepted Jewish
tradition itself as his frame of reference, mining his
vast erudition in fields of general knowledge for ideas
which could shed new light on Judaism or enhance his
understanding of man. This non-apologetic approach
characterizes the Rav's entire relationship to secular
knowledge. Imbued with strong faith and a secure sense
of self, he was unafraid to expose himself to new ideas,
nor did he place limits on his children's reading. The
fact of divine revelation, entailing both belief in God
and a system of norms, could not be changed by whatever
he studied. But his understanding of tradition and his
ability to communicate it could be enhanced through the
study of "the best that had been thought and said in the
world."
These thoughts are of great comfort when I read pronouncements such as the
ones previously quoted.
Kol Tuv and Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

This website contains articles which are found in Yared Neeman. The best
rebuttal of Rabbi Rotter is Rav Lichtenstein's article which is in the VBM
Archives. I pose one question for the list. We know that Rashi , Rambam,
Ramban ,Seforno and other Rishonim were familiar with secular disciplines. We
know that the Aruch LaNer had a Ph.D . The Chasam Sofer and the Gra were also
familiar with secular disciplines. Does this disqualify them and RYBS as
Gdolim?!Chas ve Shalom!
I recall that ArtScroll recalled "My Uncle, The Netziv" because the Netziv
was portrayed in less than the standard hagiographical style. Therefore,
Rabbi Rotter's article is the haredi shitta with no apologia . It is somewhat
amazing that a Rosh Yeshiva would advocate protection of those who don't
learn but claim that they are. Whatever happened to the Rambam in Hilchos
Talmud Torah 3:10?!
Zeliglaw@aol.com(Steven Brizel)

I understand that formatting quotations so that they'll be easy to read,
is a very difficult task for some people. But is it too much to ask that
listmembers and other gedolim be refferred to by their names, rather than
by their initials? I see the initials RMF, and presume them to stand for
Rav Moshe Feinstein, and then a page later I realize that the reference
is to Reb Moshe Feldman.
Recent issues of Avodah have included RMF, REC, RYGB, RYZ, RYBS, RSC, and
others. I have figued out most of these, but if I am having trouble
reading the posts, I suspect that others are having trouble too.
I thank you all in advance for the care you put in writing. Thanks.
Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In #90 R. Richard Walpoe (my former neighnor) posited the following
classifications:
<<1) We do not fathon chazal's rationale, therefore it is best not to tamper
with
it. Unlike the case of R. Meir whose Psak NEVER "took off", Chazal's psak
did
have a period f being binding..
2) We have "estopped" ourselves from overturning Chazal. This is how the TB
is
binding, etc.
3) Minhog avoiseinu Beyodeinu. In order to have a stable system of psak, we
need to maintain a certain degree of continuty that is not subject to popular
whims but is based upon precedent and mesorah.
4) Related to #3, we sometimes (see RED Teitz's elaboration) rely even upon
erroneous decisions. >>
I wonder how you would classify the gemara and Tosaphos in Beitza 30a
"One cannot clap, slap thighs or dance on Shabbat and Yom Tov". Rashi
explains that it's a gezeira for fear of mitaken kli shir. Tosphos (T'nan)
that during their time this gezeira no longer applied, since in Tosphos's
time individuals were no longer experts in fixing musical instruments. This
is a clear change in the halacha due to sociological change. How is this
instance different from others where "minhag avosaynu b'yadeinu" applies? Did
the Tosphos have the ability to make changes based on their societal norms,
but at some point in time after that, we're frozen? What's the cut-off point?
Who decided?
Shabbat Shalom
David I. Cohen

BDCOHEN613@aol.com wrote:
> I wonder how you would classify the gemara and Tosaphos in Beitza 30a
> "One cannot clap, slap thighs or dance on Shabbat and Yom Tov". Rashi
> explains that it's a gezeira for fear of mitaken kli shir. Tosphos (T'nan)
> that during their time this gezeira no longer applied, since in Tosphos's
> time individuals were no longer experts in fixing musical instruments. This
> is a clear change in the halacha due to sociological change. How is this
> instance different from others where "minhag avosaynu b'yadeinu" applies? Did
> the Tosphos have the ability to make changes based on their societal norms,
> but at some point in time after that, we're frozen? What's the cut-off point?
> Who decided?
> Shabbat Shalom
> David I. Cohen
Reb Moshe writes (Igros Moshe O.H. II # 100 page 292) "No dancing
or clapping but there is a heter for Tosfos Beitza 30 who writes
that it is permitted for us since we don't know how to fix
instruments - Tosfos seems astounding even if you grant his
premise that in modern times we don't know how to fix instruments
- nevertheless - since it prohibited by vote it can not be
nullified even though its whole rational has ceased and surely in
our times when we see that there are those who know how to make
instruments - therefore there is no basis to nullify the
issur..." He comes with an ingenious rationalization...He
concludes "that it is appropriate to be machmir even though the
din is in accord with the Rema who writes that the minhag is to
be maikel and that we see many righteous people who dance on
Shabbos and Yom Tov."
Please read the tshuva.
Daniel Eidensohn